EVE Search - [issue] ECM/ECCM unbalanced

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[issue] ECM/ECCM unbalanced

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Amarr Holymight Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.09.20 15:24:00 - [1] I see how ECM is unbalanced when a battleship can't get a lock for 2-3 minutes during a battle even with two overheated ECCM modules fitted, with one ship (Falcon) against you. I start to realise either Falcons are way overpowered or ECCM is underpowered either way it's unbalanced. I know it is chance based but even if you manage to get a lock you will only lose it ten seconds later, so I propose either a slight nerf to ECM or a boost to ECCM. As it stands there is no reasonable way to counter this ship effectively.
Amarr Holymight Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.09.20 15:24:00 - [2] I see how ECM is unbalanced when a battleship can't get a lock for 2-3 minutes during a battle even with two overheated ECCM modules fitted, with one ship (Falcon) against you. I start to realise either Falcons are way overpowered or ECCM is underpowered either way it's unbalanced. I know it is chance based but even if you manage to get a lock you will only lose it ten seconds later, so I propose either a slight nerf to ECM or a boost to ECCM. As it stands there is no reasonable way to counter this ship effectively.
Vladina Krematoria	Posted - 2008.09.20 16:29:00 - [3] ..mate ECM is only viable on ships like the falcon and scorp specificaly because they get bonuses..without those bonuses ECM is completely pointless and useless.point:most battleships have a sensor strength of 22 plus points..try to fit the equivalent of 22 points ECM on any other ship than a falcon or scorp or kitsune and you fail.E-Z answer and quite effective is of course drones..ive seen plenty of falcon pilots fall due to drone aggro.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.20 16:40:00 - [4] unoriginal whine-troll is unoriginal.
Drake Draconis	Posted - 2008.09.20 18:25:00 - [5] Did it occur to you that the guy you where up against had high skills in that area and that his ship had super bonuses on it? /me thumbs down
Flaming Lemming Caldari Puppeteer Press	Posted - 2008.09.20 22:10:00 - [6] I have no problem with looking ata slight buff to ECCM, but ECM has already been seriously nerfed to the point that it's only feasible to use on very specialized ships. So thumbs in the middle.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.09.20 23:53:00 - [7] One Falcon, with all-V skills, faction jammers, 3x SDA II, and a T2 jam strength rig, gets 65.3% jam chance against a Hyperion, and an 86.4% jam chance against even a Kronos, assuming both have 2 overheated ECCM. Assuming you mean T1 battleships, and your guess of 2 minutes is accurate, you just wound up on the wrong side of a 0.8% chance - it happens, about 1 time in 130. If you mean to suggest that this is the case reliably, I might suggest that you fit the correct kind of ECCM in future. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Garott	Posted - 2008.09.21 00:53:00 - [8] Fitting 2 ECCM pretty much gimps every setup, it needs to hard counter ECM... in a less worthless way. There's no need to nerf ECM again though.
Kirra Liu Echelon Holdings Echelon.	Posted - 2008.09.21 05:30:00 - [9] Originally by: Vladina Krematoria ..mate ECM is only viable on ships like the falcon and scorp specificaly because they get bonuses..without those bonuses ECM is completely pointless and useless.point:most battleships have a sensor strength of 22 plus points..try to fit the equivalent of 22 points ECM on any other ship than a falcon or scorp or kitsune and you fail.E-Z answer and quite effective is of course drones..ive seen plenty of falcon pilots fall due to drone aggro. This. Totally agree and do not want to see a nerf to ECM or boost to anything else. Also I dont think anything needs nerfing at the moment, so why fix stuff that aint broken.
Amarr Holymight Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.09.22 07:21:00 - [10] Edited by: Amarr Holymight on 22/09/2008 07:25:02 ECM hasn't been nerfed what the hell you all talking about it was given a boost if anything and now is by far the most effective form of ewar everyone knows that. It seems I have a bunch of whineass Caldari frickin trolls responding to this I like flying solo from time to time and if I can't counter one ship effectively with any tactic other than bring in more people it effects this part of the game negatively. As a test I fit ECCM knowing I was up against it & I fully expected to die so it's not a whine in that sense, only that I couldn't take anyone down anyone with me for using the right tactic it felt a bit lobsided. I have run the figures a fully fledged Falcon pilot has between 46-55% chance of jamming a Battleship with two ECCM which is basically only a Dominix if you still want to tackle etc. and yes I did fit the correct ones Herschel you're doing great work here on the forums but lay off the trolling mate.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.09.22 14:31:00 - [11] Originally by: Amarr Holymight I have run the figures a fully fledged Falcon pilot has between 46-55% chance of jamming a Battleship with two ECCM which is basically only a Dominix if you still want to tackle etc. and yes I did fit the correct ones Herschel you're doing great work here on the forums but lay off the trolling mate. I have come to the conclusion that ECCM needs a boost as opposed to the other and I am rewriting OP to sound it off. If you're fitting two overheated ECCM, and you still get jammed reliably by a single Falcon for several minutes at a time, you're fitting the wrong ECCM. It will happen occasionally by chance, but as I said, the chances are very low, being less than 1%. As for buffing ECCM, I don't especially have a problem with it - two overheated ECCM is a massive investment in sensor strength, and the fact that you still get jammed out 2/3 of the time with that(albeit with a very specialized setup) is kind of scary. I made a post a while back about logistics ships designed for remote ECCM, and I'd love to see something like a sensor strength skill, or even four(though you'd have to lower baseline sensor strengths a little to compensate, so that you have to get the skill to 3 or so for parity). I was criticizing your numbers, not your objective. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Amarr Holymight Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.09.22 19:38:00 - [12] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto If you're fitting two overheated ECCM, and you still get jammed reliably by a single Falcon for several minutes at a time, you're fitting the wrong ECCM. It will happen occasionally by chance, but as I said, the chances are very low, being less than 1%. I have no idea where you pulling these figures from fella you should perhaps look into things a little more before spouting rubbish, EFT figures show a Falcon is capable of jamming a BS fitted with two ECCM 49% of the time every 20 seconds. The other 10 seconds is spent trying to get a lock so you have 10 seconds lock time every 40 unless you get lucky, if that's too hard for you to understand maybe you should try another game. ECCM is underpowered and useless CCP please fix this countermeasure.
Amarr Holymight Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.09.22 20:07:00 - [13]
Drake Draconis	Posted - 2008.09.22 23:52:00 - [14] Are you taking into account the overheat bonus?
SeerinDarkness Minmatar An Tir Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2008.09.23 05:52:00 - [15] I was going to start another thread but this one seems the logical place to talk about the issue i believe the base problem here is that falcons are running around totally permi jamming entire fleets iv been in a lot of fleet fights recently and no fitting iv been able to come up with has been effective at all ,even a scorp w 2 sens booster 2's 2 calderi eccm 2's and 2 backup arrays and rigs ,a huge gimp on fittng btw and still permi jammed by 1 falcon rediculas. I propose the answer is to set the ecm modules the same as ecm burst modules in that u should be able to have 1 ecm module active at a time period. permi jam with no hope at all is happening because falcons are doing max chance jamming by filling all the mid slots with ecm's and then running them in sequence like 5 seconds apart. this is totally a overpowered situation with chance based ecm that really isent taking into account relative sensor strengths and eccm /backup arrays/ anti jam rigs fitted. TBH i feel that the falcon as the force recon hull that also warps cloaked and everything else is kind of screwed up as well because something that has that kind of ability should Not be getting the covert ops bonus's as well with that kind of sensor strength inherent to its hull. a cov ops cloaking ship should have as minimum sensor strength as possable so it isent giving itself away with signal leakage. SeerinDarkness LFA Ceo
Amarr Holymight Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.09.23 21:58:00 - [16] Originally by: Drake Draconis Are you taking into account the overheat bonus? Nope but I also didn't take into account EOS link bonuses mindlinks or anything flowery just the base stats. If you fit a countermeasure it should work that's the bottom line for me.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.09.24 01:43:00 - [17] Originally by: Amarr Holymight Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto If you're fitting two overheated ECCM, and you still get jammed reliably by a single Falcon for several minutes at a time, you're fitting the wrong ECCM. It will happen occasionally by chance, but as I said, the chances are very low, being less than 1%. I have no idea where you pulling these figures from fella you should perhaps look into things a little more before spouting rubbish, EFT figures show a Falcon is capable of jamming a BS fitted with two ECCM 49% of the time every 20 seconds. The other 10 seconds is spent trying to get a lock so you have 10 seconds lock time every 40 unless you get lucky, if that's too hard for you to understand maybe you should try another game. ECCM is underpowered and useless CCP please fix this countermeasure. You said you were jammed for 2 minutes at a time, that being 6 ECM cycles. 0.494^6 = 0.0145 = 1.45%. (My original numbers were assuming a fully optimized Falcon, including 7 racial jammers, but 10 second ECM cycles - I'm a Gallente pilot, and apparently my memory of cycle times on modules I don't use is worse than I thought). In any case, even with correct numbers, getting jammed for 2 minutes at a time, reliably, happens a vanishingly small percentage of the time. Now, you won't get a lock all that often - as you say, lock times do not help - but you're not jammed wholly out of the fight the way you imply. Also, you're fighting a ship that costs as much as yours and requires as much skill as yours, it should probably be able to stand in combat with yours as well. Even after the jamming, you're doing as much DPS as he is, if not more, with a far bigger HP buffer - if you can keep the scram on, he will just die. Of course, you can't do so solo very often(though him missing two consecutive jam cycles looks a lot like it at times), which is his whole defence, but if the odds go against him you can clean up pretty easily, and even if the odds are in his favour you should be able to drive him off most of the time. It depends on speeds and ranges and fittings, of course, but assuming close-in combat with close-in ships, the ECCM-fit battleship will generally survive, sometimes even bagging the kill. Against a ship of equal cost, skill, and power, with no "terrain" advantages, you win most fights if you fit the countermeasure to his setup. This is a problem? ------------------ Fix the forums!
Amarr Holymight Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.09.26 12:07:00 - [18] Well the odds of two consecutive cycles being missed are pretty low even with ECCM fitted. Plus most falcons cycle their jammers.
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.09.26 17:15:00 - [19] Originally by: Amarr Holymight Hahaha look at that horrible EFT Falcon fit -----------
Amarr Holymight Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.09.26 23:49:00 - [20] Yeh it just has the necessary mods fitted to support this discussion, I threw it together quickly and it is a pretty awful fit. What's your point here that you are capable of reading Eve fittings or that you are a really bad poster?.
Kadoes Khan	Posted - 2008.09.27 04:53:00 - [21] Ok having 7 jammers pointed at you and only being jammed 50% of the time is pretty ****ing good tbh. If a specialized ECM ship can't jam people reliably why even have them around? Canceling out ships with a 1:1 ratio doesn't work well. A specialized ECM ship should be able to reliably jam multiple people unless they specifically fit to counter. Throwing on an ECCM does exactly that, maybe you get jam but to keep up reliability the pilot has to focus more jammers at you(and subsequently not at your buddies). -=^=- "Someday the world will recognize the genius in my insanity."
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.09.27 15:55:00 - [22] Originally by: Amarr Holymight Yeh it just has the necessary mods fitted to support this discussion, I threw it together quickly and it is a pretty awful fit. What's your point here that you are capable of reading Eve fittings or that you are a really bad poster?. no u, ur the bad poster. The EFT shot you posted doesn't do anything to support your argument because only the dumbest of dumbasses flies a 7-jammer falcon on tranquility. Drop down to 4 or 5 jammers to represent what you're actually likely to see in game and run the numbers again. -----------
Amarr Holymight Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.09.28 04:42:00 - [23] Originally by: Scatim Helicon Originally by: Amarr Holymight Yeh it just has the necessary mods fitted to support this discussion, I threw it together quickly and it is a pretty awful fit. What's your point here that you are capable of reading Eve fittings or that you are a really bad poster?. no u, ur the bad poster. The EFT shot you posted doesn't do anything to support your argument because only the dumbest of dumbasses flies a 7-jammer falcon on tranquility. Drop down to 4 or 5 jammers to represent what you're actually likely to see in game and run the numbers again. Speaking of dumbest of dumbasses.
Amarr Holymight Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.09.28 04:47:00 - [24] You know if you wanted me to make a more palatable Falcon fit you could have just asked instead of being an asshat about it.
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.28 08:06:00 - [25] Originally by: Amarr Holymight EFTwarring[/IMG] Right. Because all Falcons fit 4 of every type of racial jammer, right? And fit 2 strength rigs as well as 3 distort amps Recalculate your chances with a more realistic Falcon fit: High: Covops Cloak, Cyno Gen, Salvager, HML II Mids: 10Mn MWD II, Sensor Booster II, Multispec II, Grav II, Mag II, Radar II, Ladar II Lows: 3x Signal Distort Amp II Rigs: ECM range, Agility
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.28 08:09:00 - [26] Originally by: Amarr Holymight Yeh it just has the necessary mods fitted to support this discussion, I threw it together quickly and it is a pretty awful fit. What's your point here that you are capable of reading Eve fittings or that you are a really bad poster?. Hint: what if that falcon pilot needs to jam a Sniper Apoc, the single most dangerous ship a Falcon pilot can face? What are his chances to jam it?
Amarr Holymight Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.09.28 18:21:00 - [27] This discussion is not about how to fit a Falcon so quit derailing it. The fit on the falcon isn't entirley relevant he would have had a fair idea I was flying gallente ships and seeing as we were in empire could have purpose fitted so I should probably put 6 gallente jammers on there if you really want to theory craft it.
Dex Nederland Caldari Lai Dai Infinity Systems	Posted - 2008.09.28 20:55:00 - [28] Actually the way you fit a Falcon does matter for your argument. You didn't choose a Rook, Scorpion, or Blackbird for your argument because in a fleet battle the Rook/Scorpion/Blackbird will likely be targeted by anything it hasn't jammed immediately. In a fleet battle even 1 Falcon (or Rook/Scorpion) can only reliable perma-jam 1 battleship. So to perma-jam a fleet of Battleships would take a fleet of ECM ships. On the cruiser level ECM ships can do a bit more disruption. The ECM ship will be doing relatively low damage that its HAC counterparts have to make up for so the battle should last longer. Likely what you should be requesting instead of a boost to ECCM or a nerf to ECM is for another look at how the Falcon balances. For example since the boost to the Falcon, how many Rooks have been sold in comparision to before? Is the Falcon still being used in its role as a Force Recon or has it also taken on the role of Combat Recon from the Rook? Founder Heiian Society
Amarr Holymight Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.09.28 23:45:00 - [29] The point is fitting ECCM in small gang combat as a countermeasure doesn't work as much as it should but this thread is Necro too much craptalk.
fuze Chosen Path Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2008.09.29 12:57:00 - [30] Originally by: Vladina Krematoria most battleships have a sensor strength of 22 plus points Geddon has 17 FYI (thats less then an avg BC). All Caldari have 22 or more and average would be around 21. As to the dual ECCM fitting EFT shows optimal numbers and doesn't take range in account. Even then it can reduce change from 88% to 38% (at optimal, no fleet bonuses or overheating). With a 4 times multi all level V falcon pilot. (98% to 48% with racials) So countering 4 mods with 2 opposite mods is rather significant. But the pilot can also choose to use two sensor backup arrays and reduce it even further 13%. And there is the point where it gets questionable if 4 mods vs 4 mods should equalize or not. Jamming has the range falloff penalty but ECCM/Backup array don't. One could argue of BS would get a few extra sensor points. If you look across the board the way sensor strength is divided to class/size 20 should be minimum for a BS. (Same goes for Command ships which have the same sensor strenght as their T1 versions and are just above cruiser sized ships) ECCM could get a small percentage increase or have the stacking penalty removed (since it reduces the chance of getting jammed by 50%). But you also can introduce a rig that amplifies the ECCM effect to counter jammer that uses rigs to amplify the jamming. There is a sensor strength booster in the itemsdb database but that has a 100% increase of sensor strength. Which is basically the same as a T2 racial ECCM (of 96%). But its not in the game so its considered being overpowered which makes sense. So changing it in a ECCM amplifier with penalty to CPU or speed could be usefull but you still end up with a gimped fit. Having a ship with a sensor strength over 150 (more than a carrier) hardly makes sense. Another option would be a skill that increases the ECCM (and counters ECM related skills) which should require same prerequisites as the ECM skills. (eg FM skill) And after a few hours of looking at the numbers it seems that with the skill bonuses, rig bonuses, amplifier bonuses and ship type bonuses the falcons are very powerful ECM vessels. tl;dr Revise standard sensor strength mechanism for ships alltogether. Buff ECCM

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.